Heimlicher v. Steele
| Decision Date | 03 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C05-4054-PAZ.,C05-4054-PAZ. |
| Parties | Laura A. HEIMLICHER and Lawrence W. Heimlicher, Individually, and as Administrators of the Estate of Cole C. Heimlicher, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. James O. STEELE, M.D., and Dickinson County Memorial Hospital, an Iowa non-profit corporation, dba Lakes Regional Healthcare, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Braun, Staack & Hellman, Waterloo, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Jim D. Dekoster, Stephen J. Powell, Swisher & Cohrt, PLC, Waterloo, IA, Joseph L. Fitzgibbons, Fitzgibbons Law Office, Estherville, IA, for Defendants.
This action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint on June 14, 2005. The plaintiffs are Laura A. Heimlicher and Lawrence W. Heimlicher, both individually and as Administrators of the Estate of their deceased infant son, Cole C. Heimlicher. They are residents of Spirit Lake, Dickinson County, Iowa. The defendants are Dickinson County Memorial Hospital, a hospital in Spirit Lake, Dickinson County, Iowa (the "Hospital"); and James 0. Steele, M.D., a specialist in emergency medicine employed by the Hospital. Jurisdiction in this court is invoked under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd.
According to the Complaint, on the evening on February 11, 2004, Laura Heimlicher, who was eight months' pregnant, started to bleed vaginally. She called "911," but before the ambulance could arrive, her water broke. She was taken by ambulance to the Hospital, where she was admitted. She saw Dr. Steele in the Emergency Department, and told him she had been bleeding severely since before her water broke, and she was suffering from severe pain in the abdominal wall surrounding her belly button.
Dr. Steele performed a vaginal examination, and found Laura Heimlicher's cervix to be 50% effaced. A fetal heart monitor was applied, and fetal heart tones were in the range of 120s to 130s, with good variability. Dr. Steele spoke with Dr. Fiegen, a doctor in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, who recommended administration of a medication. After the medication was administered, an ultrasound was completed by a technician employed by the Hospital. The technician assured Mrs. Heimlicher and Dr. Steele that there was no abruption, although she did identify an abnormality in the placenta. After again consulting with Dr. Fiegen, Dr. Steele decided it was safe to transfer Mr. Heimlicher to Sioux Valley Hospital in Sioux Falls.
At about 10:25 p.m., Mrs. Heimlicher was taken by ambulance to the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, hospital. During the trip, her vaginal bleeding continued and her pain increased. Shortly before midnight, Ms. Heimlicher arrived at Sioux Valley Hospital, where Dr. Fiegen noted she was in "severe pain and clearly abrupting her placenta or rupturing the uterus." She was taken to the operating room, where the baby was stillborn. Mrs. Heimlicher alleges she has suffered serious medical and psychological problems as a result of this incident.
In Count I of the Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the defendants for negligence. In Count II, the plaintiffs allege as follows:
24. Defendant [Hospital] is and was a "participating hospital" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1).
25. Laura A. Heimlicher had an "emergency medical condition" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1). Dr. Steele, individually and as an agent of [the Hospital], was aware of Laura Heimlicher's emergency medical condition. Other employees and agents of [the Hospital] were aware of Laura Heimlicher's emergency medical condition. This awareness is documented in the "Consent for Transfer" form signed by Dr. Steele and Jennifer Helle.
26. Despite this knowledge of Mrs. Heimlicher's emergency medical condition, she was not "stabilized" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)[3](B).
27. Mrs. Heimlicher was "transferred" from the [Hospital] without being stabilized.
28. Dr. Steele and [the Hospital] violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("ETALA") by recognizing an emergency medical condition and failing to stabilize Mrs. Heimlicher to the extent that no material deterioration of her condition was likely, within reasonable medical probability, to result from her transfer from the hospital, and by transferring her to another facility without stabilizing her.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Dr. Steele and other employees and agents of [the Hospital] to stabilize Mrs. Heimlicher's emergency medical condition prior to transfer, Mrs. Heimlicher suffered "personal harm" to herself and her son. That personal harm caused or contributed to the death of Cole Heimlicher.
FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Laura A. Heimlicher and Lawrence W. Heimlicher ask for judgment against the Defendants for a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000.00 as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)[1], in addition to whatever other damages are available under Iowa State Law.
In Count III, the plaintiffs incorporate previous allegations in the Complaint and ask for parental consortium damages.
On July 18, 2005, Dr. Steele filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. No. 8) The plaintiffs resisted the motion on August 4, 2005. (Doc. No. 9) Dr. Steele filed a reply brief on August 9, 2005. (Doc. No. 10) On June 20, 2006, upon consent of the parties, this case was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. (See Doc. No. 15) The undersigned therefore will address the pending motion to dismiss.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd () (the "Act"), was enacted into law in 1985. Section (a) of the Act provides:
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital's emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
Section (b) of the Act mandates that a hospital provide necessary stabilizing treatment for an individual who comes to the hospital if the hospital determines the individual has an emergency medical condition.
With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions, an "emergency medical condition" is defined in the Act to mean "(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child." 42 U.S.C § 1395dd(e)(1)(B). Under subsection (c)(1)(A) of the Act, if an individual has an emergency medical condition which has not been stabilized, the hospital may not transfer the individual unless (i) the individual is informed of the hospital's obligations under the Act and the risk of transfer, and "in writing requests transfer to another medical facility"; or (ii) a physician has signed a certification "that based upon the information available at the time of transfer, the medical benefits reasonably expected from the provision of appropriate medical treatment at another medical facility outweigh the increased risks to the individual and ... to the unborn child from effecting the transfer." 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(1)(A).
According to the Complaint, the Hospital is covered by the EMTALA, and the Hospital and Dr. Steele were presented with an "emergency medical condition" when Laura Heimlicher came to the Hospital on February 11, 2004. The plaintiffs allege the defendants were aware of this condition, and "[t]his awareness is documented in the `Consent for Transfer' form signed by Dr. Steele and [Nurse] Jennifer Helle." The plaintiffs further allege that despite this awareness, the defendants transferred Laura Heimlicher to another hospital even though she was not "stabilized," as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(3)(B).1 The plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the defendants' failure to stabilize Mrs. Heimlicher's emergency medical condition prior to transfer, she suffered personal harm, "which caused or contributed to the death of Cole Heimlicher." On their claims under the Act, the plaintiffs ask to be awarded "a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000.00 as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)[1],2 in addition to whatever other damages are available under Iowa State Law."
In his motion to dismiss, Dr. Steele argues the plaintiffs' allegations under the EMTALA fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against him, and he therefore contends the plaintiffs' claims against him should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He further argues the plaintiffs' state law claims are not within this court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and those claims should be dismissed as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Finally, he argues the court, as a matter of discretion, should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Dr. Steele argues the plaintiffs' EMTALA damages claim against him should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He argues the EMTALA does not provide a cause of action for damages against an individual physician,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heimlicher v. Steele
...has previously held, "EMTALA does not provide a cause of action for damages against an individual physician." Heimlicher v. Steele, 442 F.Supp.2d 685, 692 (N.D.Iowa 2006). 8. A copy of Jury Instruction No. 15 is attached to this 9. A copy of Jury Instruction No. 13, describing a physician's......
-
Pennington-Thurman v. Christian Hosp. Ne.
...does not provide a private cause of action against an individual physician working in a hospital emergency room. Heimlicher v. Steele, 442 F. Supp. 2d 685 (N.D. Ia. 2006). Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that the Eighth Circuit would most likely conclude that theEMTALA does n......